Online Hate Speech Faces New Penalties

Summary#

This bill changes the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act to address hate propaganda, hate crimes, and online hate speech. It creates a new peace bond tool to prevent expected hate offences, defines “hatred” for Criminal Code hate propaganda offences, and restores a human rights process for online hate speech with civil remedies. It also updates youth justice rules and sets protections for complainants’ identities.

• Creates a recognizance (peace bond) to prevent expected hate propaganda or hate‑motivated crimes, with possible conditions and penalties (Criminal Code s.810.012).
• Defines “hatred” as detestation or vilification, and clarifies that mere offence or humiliation is not enough (Criminal Code s.319(7)–(8)).
• Makes online hate speech a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act, with cease orders, compensation up to $20,000, and penalties up to $50,000 (CHRA s.13; s.53.2).
• Protects the identities of victims, complainants, and witnesses in human rights complaints where there is a real and substantial risk (CHRA s.40(8)–(13); s.52(1)(e); s.60(1)(d)–(e)).
• Exempts private messages, telecom carriers, many broadcasters, hosts/caches, and providers of online communication services from CHRA hate‑speech liability (CHRA s.13(3)–(7)).
• Comes into force 90 days after royal assent for key parts; others by order in council (Coming into Force).

What it means for you#

• Households and individuals

  • You can ask a provincial court judge, with the Attorney General’s consent, for a recognizance if you reasonably fear someone will commit a hate propaganda offence or a hate‑motivated crime (Criminal Code s.810.012(1)–(3)).
  • If ordered, the person must keep the peace up to 12 months, or up to 2 years if previously convicted of such offences (s.810.012(3)–(4)).
  • A person who refuses to enter the recognizance can be jailed up to 12 months (s.810.012(5)).
  • Judges may impose conditions, such as electronic monitoring, curfews, no‑contact orders, abstaining from alcohol/drugs, and providing bodily substance samples to check abstinence (s.810.012(6); s.810.3; s.811.1).
  • Judges must consider banning firearms possession; if they do not, they must record reasons (s.810.012(7)–(9)).
  • In hate‑speech cases under human rights law, victims can seek orders to stop the conduct, up to $20,000 for pain and suffering if personally identified, and the Tribunal can levy up to $50,000 in penalties to the government (CHRA s.53.2(b)–(c)).
  • The law targets content expressing detestation or vilification. It does not cover mere dislike, offence, or humiliation (Criminal Code s.319(8); CHRA s.13(10)).

• People who post online content

  • You may face a human rights complaint if your public posts likely foment detestation or vilification based on a prohibited ground (race, religion, sex, disability, etc.) (CHRA s.13(1), (9)).
  • You remain responsible while the content stays public and you can remove or block it (CHRA s.13(2)).
  • Private messages are excluded (CHRA s.13(5)).

• Workers and creators posting for organizations

  • If you create or develop content that is hate speech, your organization could face orders and monetary remedies (CHRA s.53.2(a)–(c)). Compensation requires that the person ordered “created or developed” the hate speech (s.53.2(b)).

• Businesses and platforms

  • Hosts/caches and telecom carriers are not liable under CHRA s.13 only for providing the infrastructure or indicating the location of content (CHRA s.13(3)–(4)).
  • Licensed broadcasters and certain distributors are excluded in defined cases (CHRA s.13(6)).
  • Providers of “online communication services” (services mainly enabling user‑to‑user communication across provinces or internationally) are excluded (CHRA s.13(7)–(8)).
  • Businesses that create or develop hateful content can face orders, penalties up to $50,000, and responsibility to redress practices (CHRA s.53.2).

• Youth

  • Youth courts handle these recognizance orders for young persons. If a youth refuses to enter the recognizance, the court may impose youth sanctions, with custody and supervision capped at 30 days (YCJA s.14(2)).

• Complainants and witnesses

  • The Commission and Tribunal can shield identities where there is a real and substantial risk of threats, intimidation, or discrimination. Breaching non‑disclosure orders can be an offence (CHRA s.40(8)–(13); s.52(1)(e); s.60(1)(d)–(e)).

• Timing

  • Most provisions start 90 days after royal assent; others by order in council (Coming into Force).

Expenses#

• Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• Key figures and notes

  • No explicit appropriation in the bill text. Data unavailable.
  • Potential government revenue from Tribunal penalties up to $50,000 per substantiated case (CHRA s.53.2(c)). Aggregate revenue: Data unavailable.
  • Administrative costs for the Canadian Human Rights Commission/Tribunal and justice system workloads: Data unavailable.
  • Criminal justice costs for recognizance applications, monitoring (including possible electronic monitoring), and enforcement: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Clarifies the law by defining “hatred” and stating that offence or humiliation alone is not hate propaganda, which protects lawful expression while targeting extreme content (Criminal Code s.319(7)–(8); CHRA s.13(9)–(10)).
• Provides a preventive tool to address credible risks of hate propaganda and hate‑motivated crimes before harm occurs, with court oversight and Attorney General consent (Criminal Code s.810.012(1)–(3)).
• Offers remedies for victims, including cease orders, up to $20,000 compensation, and deterrent penalties up to $50,000 for serious cases (CHRA s.53.2).
• Protects safety and participation in the process by allowing non‑disclosure of identities when there is a real and substantial risk (CHRA s.40(8)–(13); s.52(1)(e)).
• Limits burdens on infrastructure providers and major platforms through targeted exclusions, focusing enforcement on content creators rather than carriers or service providers (CHRA s.13(3)–(7)).

Opponents' View#

• Pre‑charge recognizance can restrict liberty based on predicted conduct, with conditions like electronic monitoring, curfews, and firearms prohibitions; refusal can lead to up to 12 months’ jail (Criminal Code s.810.012(5)–(7)). Critics may see due‑process risks.
• “Likely to foment detestation or vilification” may be contested in practice, creating uncertainty and possible chilling of lawful speech, despite exclusions for offence or humiliation (CHRA s.13(1), (10)).
• Enforcement burden on the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal may increase without dedicated funding; delays could affect both complainants and respondents. Cost data are unavailable.
• Exempting hosts/caches, telecom carriers, broadcasters in many cases, and providers of online communication services may limit leverage to remove harmful content quickly, placing most liability on individual speakers (CHRA s.13(3)–(7)).
• Youth who refuse recognizance can face custody up to 30 days, which some may view as a harsh response for a preventive order rather than a conviction (YCJA s.14(2)).